If ranchers had to pay for the damage that their livestock created then beef and lamb would be a lot more expensive. Which would be a good thing. That would drive down (but not eliminate) consumption. Sort of like the idea that while a Prius may be better for the environment, Ferraris should not be illegal. They don't need to be. They are prohibitively expensive so their impact on the environment is negligible.

Pricing that truly reflects the cost of things, without hidden costs transferred to the broader community would be the kind of practical answer Spiral asked about. Powerful vested interests, however, may not be enthusiastic about the concept.

Of course not. No one protests more about public assistance for others than those who are adept at dodging their own responsibilities.

Pricing that truly reflects the cost of things, without hidden costs transferred to the broader community would be the kind of practical answer Spiral asked about. Powerful vested interests, however, may not be enthusiastic about the concept.

Of course not. No one protests more about public assistance for others than those who are adept at dodging their own responsibilities.

Which brings us back to the observation of Spiral (et al) that might is right. Justice appears ever more to just be a happy fluke rather than an imperative.

Of course not. No one protests more about public assistance for others than those who are adept at dodging their own responsibilities.

Which brings us back to the observation of Spiral (et al) that might is right. Justice appears ever more to just be a happy fluke rather than an imperative.

Justice implies impartiality. Impartiality requires the ability to judge against one's own interest, if required. This is an uncommon trait, though not an impossible one. Perhaps more frequent than pure chance (since it used to be held in high regard and children were taught to try to emulate it) but getting less common all of the time. I blame the Internet.

Which brings us back to the observation of Spiral (et al) that might is right. Justice appears ever more to just be a happy fluke rather than an imperative.

Justice implies impartiality. Impartiality requires the ability to judge against one's own interest, if required. This is an uncommon trait, though not an impossible one. Perhaps more frequent than pure chance (since it used to be held in high regard and children were taught to try to emulate it) but getting less common all of the time. I blame the Internet.

:lol: I'll blame population.

Pertinent point about working against one's own interests. It does appear that today's populace is far from uniformly interested in sacrificing their lifestyles today for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Spiral Out wrote:Let's say we eliminate the mass-production meat industry and nobody eats meat anymore. What is the proposed new food source that will meet the nutritional needs of the entire planet?

No need to go that far. How about people tend more towards eating a healthy quantity of meat? If meat prices truly reflected the costs to the entire community of the meat industry, then perhaps that would happen.

Spiral Out wrote:Let's say we eliminate the mass-production meat industry and nobody eats meat anymore. What is the proposed new food source that will meet the nutritional needs of the entire planet?

No need to go that far. How about people tend more towards eating a healthy quantity of meat? If meat prices truly reflected the costs to the entire community of the meat industry, then perhaps that would happen.

Well now we're getting into very subjective judgements indeed. How much is a "healthy quantity of meat", and for whom is it healthy? How do you imagine the meat industry to change with people eating a "healthy quantity of meat"?

Greta just addressed that question, Spiral Out. She said: "How about people tend more towards eating a healthy quantity of meat? If meat prices truly reflected the costs to the entire community of the meat industry, then perhaps that would happen."

As I said on my post #718: " Eliminate the billions of dollars of government subsidies given to the meat industry (fruit and vegetable crops are not subsidized) and see how economically feasible they are then. See: https://goo.gl/pSgTMs "

"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Generally, an amount and type that won't significantly increase the risk of bowel cancer.

That's not an answer, that's a dodge, and it proves my point quite well. You'll have to leave the judgement of what the "proper" amount (and type) of meat is up to the individual as it is yet just another subjective determination. That is, there is no scientific basis behind your suggestion. Therefore, it would have to be an all-or-nothing deal. So I'll ask again, what will the replacement food source be that will meet the nutritional needs of the entire planet?

I'm presuming the new meatless diet would necessarily have to be strictly plant-based, but then you'd run into the critical problems I'd outlined previously.

My point, SpiralOut, was that large, powerful groups (like the Nazis) propagated and enforced intolerable acts like enslavement, genocide and eugenics. By your reasoning, since they were large, powerful groups, they needed no justification for their actions.

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:My point, SpiralOut, was that large, powerful groups (like the Nazis) propagated and enforced intolerable acts like enslavement, genocide and eugenics. By your reasoning, since they were large, powerful groups, they needed no justification for their actions.

That depends on your use of the word "need". From a practical (and thus moral) standpoint large powerful groups can use that power as a de facto mandate to do whatever they please. From an ethical standpoint (what you are insinuating), you are correct, power does not apply.

What is able to be done is not what should be done, ethically speaking. SpiralOut was appealing to the idea that we are able to overpower, outsmart other organisms and the fact that we have a desire to in order to reach their conclusion that it's ethically PERMISSIBLE to kill and eat animals.

ThamiorTheThinker wrote:And I was indeed talking about the ethical standpoint, LuckyR.

-- Updated January 14th, 2017, 9:12 pm to add the following --

What is able to be done is not what should be done, ethically speaking. SpiralOut was appealing to the idea that we are able to overpower, outsmart other organisms and the fact that we have a desire to in order to reach their conclusion that it's ethically PERMISSIBLE to kill and eat animals.

Spiral's logic is sound, though limited. It is ethically permissible to kill and eat animals. Having said that there are many nuances within the topic that will limit and/or supercede that general comment.